Was Big Al really that much better then Sully?

[incoherent]

Big Al in 2007: 16.0ppg, 11.0rpg, 33.6mpg
Sully last year: 13.3ppg, 8.1rpg, 27.6mpg

Their per minute stats are nearly identical.

Big Al was a better rim protector, and shot a higher percentage. 

Sully is better offensively, better passer and shooter and higher IQ. I also think Sully is a better rebounder.

I think Big Al was a better prospect but.. only slightly, and Sully has the skills to be a better all around player.

I think some people compare Sully to what Big Al became and not what he was exactly in 2007 when traded.

What do you guys think?

[rondohondo]

I agree, I mean he had a higher PER than Klay thompson. 16.42>14.42

I know per is not everything , but he is only 22, a very good rebounder with high bbiq,and a well rounded offensive game .

I think the deal will eventually get done on draft day.

[jambr380]

Coming into the NBA, Big Al already had some of the most advanced post moves in the game. This doesn't necessarily mean he was a better prospect, but the way in which he scored was certainly more pleasing to the eye.

I will say that at this stage of their careers, they are/were much closer than one may think. You make a good point - now you need to go convince the Wolves.

[GreenWarrior]

sully does a lot of things really well but he's not great at anything. al is great in the low post.

[Who]

I think Sully's trade value would have been much higher if Coach Stevens hadn't limited his minutes so often. It'd be much easier to get K-Love if Sully was averaging the 16-10 he was capable of getting if he were playing 35-37mpg.

[NYDan]

Yeah, Al's low post moves were world class early on. There were nights that he just couldn't be stopped one on one. That one exceptional skill makes him a slightly better prospect than Sully in my book, at that stage in their careers at least.

[greg683x]

If were gonna look at stats you should include shooting percentage, bc thats the big difference if you ask me.

Sullinger 42.7%  Al Jefferson 51.4%

A power forward shooting 42% is pretty bad

[moiso]

After a couple seasons Big Al was by far the better prospect.  It wasn't even close.  Al was awesome on offense and he had the height, length, and athleticism to suggest that he could improve on defense.  I expected Al to be a multi time allstar.  I don't expect the same from Sullinger.

[byennie]

I think Big Al's upside was considered a little higher at the time, but his lack of development on the defensive end means he never quite reached his ceiling.

You have to consider Sully's green light shooting 3PTs as a contributing factor on offense. Take those away and he's closer to 48% for his career, while Big Al has been regularly in the 49-50% range.

All in all, Big Al was a slightly better scorer, slight better rebounder, better shot blocker, taller...

So in short, I think yes, Big Al was the better prospect *at the time*, but Sully does have the potential at least to have an even better career.

[#1P4P]

No, he was not, but perception is everything.

Al received 2 seasons of development before averaging those stats in his 3rd, Sully just completed his 2nd. In his second season, Al averaged 7.9PPG, 5.1RPG, 18.0MPG. Regardless of the per36, Al would not have been the valuable centerpiece that he was for the KG trade. Al was where Greg Monroe is at (except AJ still had a year left on his rookie deal), Sully will get to that point next year (IMO), but he won't hold the value until then.

[gpap]

He was.

Jefferson was looked at as a legit double double guy.

Even though Boston fans are already looking into creating a Sullinger statue next to Red Auerbach's outside the garden, he's looked at as nothing more than a role player outside Mass, well hopefully except to Minnesota.

I think a lot of that has to do with his back issues, conditioning issues and being undersized.

[BigAlTheFuture]

He was.

Jefferson was looked at as a legit double double guy.

Even though Boston fans are already looking into creating a Sullinger statue next to Red Auerbach's outside the garden, he's looked at as nothing more than a role player outside Mass, well hopefully except to Minnesota.

I think a lot of that has to do with his back issues, conditioning issues and being undersized.

False. Auerbach's statue is not outside the garden.

 

[D.o.s.]

After a couple seasons Big Al was by far the better prospect.  It wasn't even close.  Al was awesome on offense and he had the height, length, and athleticism to suggest that he could improve on defense.  I expected Al to be a multi time allstar.  I don't expect the same from Sullinger.

This is how I remember it, too.

edit -- after all, no one is making "SullingerTheFuture" CelticsBlog names in 2014... 

[LarBrd33]

Comparing stats is missing the point. At the time of the trade, big al was perceived to be a vastly superior prospect than sully today. No comparison. Al was widely believed (rightly or wrongly) to be a lock for 20-10 production and some felt he had the best low post moves in the league. If things broke right, he was a superstar big man you could build around. 

Now in retrospect we know that al capped out as a 20-10 guy and didn't reach superstardom

On the flip side, Sullinger isn't even widely regarded as a future starter. You'll see several folks saying he's a future role player. Glen Davis with the brain or Ryan Gomes.  Sure, some (in boston) think he has star potential... But the perception of him is nowhere near big al in 07.

Al was seen as a potential cornerstone. Sully is seen as a solid role player with some upside ... Basically Terrence jones.

If you are going to argue that sully is a coveted prospect on the level or big al, you might as well say the same thing about Terrence jones.

[greg683x]

I think Big Al's upside was considered a little higher at the time, but his lack of development on the defensive end means he never quite reached his ceiling.

You have to consider Sully's green light shooting 3PTs as a contributing factor on offense. Take those away and he's closer to 48% for his career, while Big Al has been regularly in the 49-50% range.

All in all, Big Al was a slightly better scorer, slight better rebounder, better shot blocker, taller...

So in short, I think yes, Big Al was the better prospect *at the time*, but Sully does have the potential at least to have an even better career.

you cant say "but if he didnt take those 3's" because he did and does shoot those 3's and will probably continue to.